Abortion Discussion

lazygal

Adoption is for unwanted children, not unwanted pregnancy.
Not in a million years would I go through the hassle of pregnancy if I didn't want to. I don't see why women should be forced to remain pregnant to satisfy the desires of the childless.

Sulla Felix

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf


'Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives The research into U.S. women’s reasons for having abortions has been limited. In a 1985 study of 500 women in Kansas, unreadiness to parent was the reason most often given for having an abortion, followed by lack of financial resources and absence of a partner.

In 1987, a survey of 1900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women’s most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could not afford a child.

Since 1987, little research in this area
has been conducted in the United States'

The reality of most abortions, just inconvenient. Why not just adopt the child ? Adoption of a child to a couple who want the child is entirely free

Because I don't think a woman should be statutorily required, by the State, to run the risk of UTIs, piles, edema of the extremities, hypertension, depression, postpartum psychosis, thromboembolic disorders (which can kill), anemia, skin plaques, hyperemesis, hypercoagubility, exacerbation of pre existing undiagnosed thyroid disease and diabetes .... and probably a few more that I'm missing, all just to give the child up for adoption.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

The reality of most abortions, just inconvenient. Why not just adopt the child ? Adoption of a child to a couple who want the child is entirely free

Well then, tell us all about all the children who would otherwise have been aborted foetuses that you have adopted.

I pity the foo' who brings up this non-solution to the problem. It is a non-solution because there are already more children in foster care and orphanages than there are people willing to adopt, therefore by excluding the option of abortion (in states which allow it) what you are doing is not saving children, but forcing them into an already broken system.

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf


'Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives The research into U.S. women’s reasons for having abortions has been limited. In a 1985 study of 500 women in Kansas, unreadiness to parent was the reason most often given for having an abortion, followed by lack of financial resources and absence of a partner.


...Adoption of a child to a couple who want the child is entirely free

The adoption is entirely free to the woman, yeah. But your post specifically pertains to Americans, and they don't have free health care or maternity benefits. Kansas in particular is an at-will state, which means that employers can boot any worker they want to at any time.

Perhaps if a woman is willing to forgo scans, check ups and vitamins, live without food, maternity clothes and rent for a few months and give birth on her own in her bedroom then the pregnancy and labour would be entirely free too.

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

The adoption is entirely free to the woman, yeah. But your post specifically pertains to Americans, and they don't have free health care or maternity benefits. Kansas in particular is an at-will state, which means that employers can boot any worker they want to at any time.

Perhaps if a woman is willing to forgo scans, check ups and vitamins, live without food, maternity clothes and rent for a few months and give birth on her own in her bedroom then the pregnancy and labour would be entirely free too.

If abortion was legal in this country I might be able to get reasons for abortion but as its not legal that is not possible hence the reason for Kansas. If I can find other stats for a different state/country I will post them

With regard to Kansas

http://www.blr.com/Compensation/Discrimination/Maternity-and-Pregnancy-in-Kansas

Kansas does not have a state law that specifically requires employers to offer pregnancy leave. However, employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) must provide the same leave benefits to women affected by pregnancy as are provided to employees with temporary disabilities. The Kansas Commission on Civil Rights gives similar advice (KS Admin. Reg. Sec. 21-32-6). This means that employers can provide leave for employees with temporary disabilities, including pregnancy disability, with or without pay, or not provide it at all, as long as all employees are treated the same in their requests for temporary disability leave. The Act covers employers with 15 or more employees.'

Always a way around these problems, if one wants to find a solution other than the easy one. Bit of compassion for the innocent

Sulla Felix

mbiking123 wrote: »

If abortion was legal in this country I might be able to get reasons for abortion but as its not legal that is not possible hence the reason for Kansas. If I can find other stats for a different state/country I will post them

With regard to Kansas

http://www.blr.com/Compensation/Discrimination/Maternity-and-Pregnancy-in-Kansas

Kansas does not have a state law that specifically requires employers to offer pregnancy leave. However, employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) must provide the same leave benefits to women affected by pregnancy as are provided to employees with temporary disabilities. The Kansas Commission on Civil Rights gives similar advice (KS Admin. Reg. Sec. 21-32-6). This means that employers can provide leave for employees with temporary disabilities, including pregnancy disability, with or without pay, or not provide it at all, as long as all employees are treated the same in their requests for temporary disability leave. The Act covers employers with 15 or more employees.'

Always a way around these problems, if one wants to find a solution other than the easy one. Bit of compassion for the innocent

And the medical risks associated with being pregnant and giving birth, Just going to ignore them? I even gave you a list, some of them are not so trivial.

mbiking123

Sulla Felix wrote: »

And the medical risks associated with being pregnant and giving birth, Just going to ignore them? I even gave you a list, some of them are not so trivial.

Ok Mifepristone http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3415402.html

'Though reference to mifepristone as the "abortion pill" makes early medical abortion sound like a simple procedure, it actually involves the administration of two drugs on separate days, a span of several days before the abortion occurs and up to 2-3 weeks of bleeding and spotting. Both in the United States and in Europe, protocols can vary according to whether providers use registered regimens (those formally approved by a country's regulatory authority) or alternate regimens, developed to improve effectiveness and efficiency, and to minimize side effects. '

Ok that does not sound so good, I wonder if its so safe http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarketdrugsafetyinformationforpatientsandproviders/ucm111323.htm

'Mifeprex is used, together with another medication called misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy (within 49 days of the start of a woman's last menstrual period). Since its approval in September 2000, the Food and Drug Administration has received reports of serious adverse events, including several deaths, in the United States following medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol'

Wow that does not sound so good for the people in the USA

'Prophylactic antibiotic use carries its own risk of serious adverse events such as severe or fatal allergic reactions. Also, prophylactic use of antibiotics can stimulate the growth of “superbugs,” bacteria resistant to everyday antibiotics. Finally, it is not known which antibiotic and regimen (what dose and for how long) will be effective in cases such as the ones that have occurred'

Guess abortion has its risks too, as women in the US have died as a result. This is just an example

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well then, tell us all about all the children who would otherwise have been aborted foetuses that you have adopted.

I pity the foo' who brings up this non-solution to the problem. It is a non-solution because there are already more children in foster care and orphanages than there are people willing to adopt, therefore by excluding the option of abortion (in states which allow it) what you are doing is not saving children, but forcing them into an already broken system.

Wow, Mr T what a statement. With Irish people going to Africa, China and now Brazil to adopt children as none available in this country to adopt. Loads of families wanting to adopt

rainbow kirby

mbiking123 wrote: »

Wow, Mr T what a statement. With Irish people going to Africa, China and now Brazil to adopt children as none available in this country to adopt. Loads of families wanting to adopt

Pregnant people are not broodmares for the infertile. The desire of others to adopt has no bearing on whether somebody wants to carry their pregnancy to term or not.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Wow, Mr T what a statement. With Irish people going to Africa, China and now Brazil to adopt children as none available in this country to adopt. Loads of families wanting to adopt

And loads more children in care (5,799 in 2010 according to the HSE, table 4.2 on page 38 {39th per the .pdf}). Oh and the reason why the people are going foreign, it's because they don't want children at four or five (or even older, look at the stats in the above table 39% in care between 1 and 5 years and 35.7% in care longer than 5 years, most kids are in care until they're adults) who've already developed into independant human beings, they want tabulae rasa they can mould into their likenesses, so they go to countries where they can easily get newborn children and where the rules are a lot laxer as regarding adoption.

Tell me, how many children who would have otherwise been aborted foetuses have you adopted?

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

If abortion was legal in this country I might be able to get reasons for abortion but as its not legal that is not possible hence the reason for Kansas. If I can find other stats for a different state/country I will post them
With regard to Kansas

http://www.blr.com/Compensation/Discrimination/Maternity-and-Pregnancy-in-Kansas

Kansas does not have a state law that specifically requires employers to offer pregnancy leave. However, employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) must provide the same leave benefits to women affected by pregnancy as are provided to employees with temporary disabilities. The Kansas Commission on Civil Rights gives similar advice (KS Admin. Reg. Sec. 21-32-6). This means that employers can provide leave for employees with temporary disabilities, including pregnancy disability, with or without pay, or not provide it at all, as long as all employees are treated the same in their requests for temporary disability leave. The Act covers employers with 15 or more employees.'

Did you even read your own link?

Always a way around these problems, if one wants to find a solution other than the easy one. Bit of compassion for the innocent

Clearly not!

Where is the "way around these problems" in the quoted section? Why didn't you read it before you posted it?

Fact of the matter is that an unemployed pregnant women in Kansas will be bankrupted by continuing with a pregnancy. An employed woman *might* have health insurance and *might* not get fired and if she does get fired than there's a very, very slim chance she *might* be able to fight a long and miserable case against her dismissal. None of which makes continuing with her unwanted pregnancy and potentially cause herself life long distress and mental problems by giving a baby up for adoption (and suffering the judgment that she will undoubtedly endure) because it gives pro lifers like yourself the warm fuzzies, a feasible option.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Tell me, how many children who would have otherwise been aborted foetuses have you adopted?

'Comment on the post not the poster.' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq

Sarky

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Did you even read your own link?

This has become a depressingly frequent refrain whenever mbiking123 posts anything

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

because it gives pro lifers like yourself the warm fuzzies, a feasible option.

On the whole warm fuzzy thing

http://blogsforvictory.com/2011/08/14/the-warm-fuzzy-culture-of-death/
'The Warm, Fuzzy Culture of Death

I read recently that a team of researchers was beginning a study that seeks to reduce the stigmatization of abortion in society. Not surprisingly, the research team is being represented by the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider (over 332,000 annually).
This upcoming study follows on the heels of a journal article published by a group of six academics which included an employee of the Guttmacher Institute. The article was titled “Abortion Stigma: A Reconceptualization of Constituents, Causes, and Consequences.” The entire article is available on the Guttmacher Institute website.
The researchers noted five reasons abortion is stigmatized including the fact that scientific advances have “challenged previous constructions of boundaries between fetus and infant.” What most disturbs me about this “research” is that its aim is specifically to counter growing scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn child…'

mbiking123

Sarky wrote: »

This has become a depressingly frequent refrain whenever mbiking123 posts anything

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq
'Contribute in a constructive way.

Nobody is interested in your laser sharp ability to cut someone down'

Sarky

So... DID you read your own links? Or do you actually think they back up your point when they do pretty much the opposite?

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

On the whole warm fuzzy thing *POSTS A FLIPPING BLOG!*

Would you mind answering my questions instead of obfuscating?

Where was the "way around these problems" in your quoted section for unemployed women, women who work for companies that employ less than 15 people, women who work for companies who haven't signed up for this voluntary measure and women who don't want to fight a long and possibly futile fight?

mbiking123

Sarky wrote: »

So... DID you read your own links? Or do you actually think they back up your point when they do pretty much the opposite?

it was a link, It was on how a woman can get maternity benefit in Kansas, I was only agreeing yes there is no maternity benefit but a woman can get the same benefits as for temporary disabilities. Which can include paid and unpaid leave for companies over 15 employees. means a woman does not necessarily loose their job or pay.

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

*POSTS A FLIPPING BLOG!*

Bold text along with typing in uppercase can be interpreted as SHOUTING

http://www.netmanners.com/48/is-this-shouting-too/

'Intent is intent. Caps means yelling and making things bigger, bolder and in red type would indicate a strong comment or trying to make a point. Yes, adding formatting when used selectively can certainly add to the impression one is yelling or upset. If you ask anyone to read out loud and e-mail with such formatting, they will almost always raise their voice when reading larger, bolder, red text.'

Please no yelling, people got smart with me, I got smart back (Southpark quote, yes that one was used in Southpark) and then all hell broke loose with threats of police etc.

lets keep it civil ?

Lingua Franca

Can. Maybe. Perhaps. Potentially. Not neccessarily. IF their company has signed up for this voluntary scheme in a notoriously capitalist country. And IF that company provides comprehensive healthcare along with maternity benefits.

Hardly a "way around these problems" for most women.

You said that adoption is free. Pregnancy check ups, scans, meds, hospital/midwife/doula delivery are not free in the USA. Maternity leave is the exception, not the norm.

I was only agreeing yes there is no maternity benefit but

Lies. You did not agree that there was no maternity benefit.

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

Bold text along with typing in uppercase can be interpreted as SHOUTING

http://www.netmanners.com/48/is-this-shouting-too/

'Intent is intent. Caps means yelling and making things bigger, bolder and in red type would indicate a strong comment or trying to make a point. Yes, adding formatting when used selectively can certainly add to the impression one is yelling or upset. If you ask anyone to read out loud and e-mail with such formatting, they will almost always raise their voice when reading larger, bolder, red text.'

Please no yelling, people got smart with me, I got smart back (Southpark quote, yes that one was used in Southpark) and then all hell broke loose with threats of police etc.

lets keep it civil ?

I was indeed yelling, and so long as you continue to lie and obfuscate and avoid questions whilst posting utter nonsense I will continue to yell.

Let's keep on topic instead of backseat modding, and try a bit of honesty?

If you have a problem with a post then you can reoprt it, as I am doing with your backseat modding posts. Right now you are obfuscating with netiquette, which is frustrating to those of us trying to have a discussion and shows you up as unable to account for yourself.

mbiking123

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pregnant people are not broodmares for the infertile. QUOTE]

There are infertile couples who would love to adopt a child, and have no intention of using anyone as a broodmare. Surrogacy is with the permission of all parties. Very harsh statement and insensitive to couples who go through a lot trying to have a child which may or may not happen

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

. Right now you are obfuscating with netiquette, which is frustrating to those of us trying to have a discussion and shows you up as unable to account for yourself.

Ok, I will leave ye all to your discussion

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

So... DID you read your own links? Or do you actually think they back up your point when they do pretty much the opposite?

Mod suggestion: Maybe instead of telling him/her that they didn't read it. Point out explicitly where their misunderstanding or misreading is occurring. Otherwise this just goes in circles:

"Did you read it?"

"Yes, I did."

"No you didn't!"

It's like chewing glass.

Mbiking, please, stop back seat moderating. Report the post and let the evil mod team handle it.

MrPudding

mbiking123 wrote: »

it was a link, It was on how a woman can get maternity benefit in Kansas, I was only agreeing yes there is no maternity benefit but a woman can get the same benefits as for temporary disabilities. Which can include paid and unpaid leave for companies over 15 employees. means a woman does not necessarily loose their job or pay.

So, if they work in a company of less than 15 employees or a company of more than 15 employees where the employer has decided, as they would be perfectly entitled to, to give no support...? Your point, and I am being generous describing it as such, is pretty weak.

mbiking123 wrote: »

There are infertile couples who would love to adopt a child...

Really? So why does Ireland have thousands of children in foster care? Don't have time for detailed research, but here are some 2011 figures:

http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=2585&ad=1#Stats

Where are all these couples that would like to adopt?

MrP

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

it was a link, It was on how a woman can get maternity benefit in Kansas, I was only agreeing yes there is no maternity benefit but a woman can get the same benefits as for temporary disabilities. Which can include paid and unpaid leave for companies over 15 employees. means a woman does not necessarily loose their job or pay.

Sooo - in certain cases pregnant women can be classified as temporarily disabled and therefore not be plunged into poverty?

Pregnancy classified as a serious enough Temporary Disability to allow some measure of protection in a State not known for it's interest in social welfare provision.

Hmmm...Temporary Disability - that sounds much more serious than the inconvenience you were describing pregnancy as earlier.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sooo - in certain cases pregnant women can be classified as temporarily disabled and therefore not be plunged into poverty?

Pregnancy classified as a serious enough Temporary Disability to allow some measure of protection in a State not known for it's interest in social welfare provision.

Hmmm...Temporary Disability - that sounds much more serious than the inconvenience you were describing pregnancy as earlier.

'The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 (an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The basic principle behind PDA is that pregnant women must be treated the same as other applicants and employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work. A woman is therefore protected against such practices as being fired or refused a job or promotion because she is pregnant. She cannot be forced to go on leave as long as she can still work, and if other employees who take disability leave are entitled to get their jobs back, so are women who have been unable to work because of pregnancy. An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job'

http://www.nchealthystart.org/aboutus/incite/incite_dec_08.html


Ok lets take Sweden, and as we can see plenty of provision for the mother unlike Kansas

'Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[5] '

http://www.thelocal.se/20100519/26730

'A total of 25 percent of known pregnancies ended in an abortion last year.'

That's a huge high number, a quarter of all pregnancies. So abortion does not appear to be related to maternity leave, paid or unpaid, job protection etc.

MrPudding

mbiking123 wrote: »

'The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 (an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The basic principle behind PDA is that pregnant women must be treated the same as other applicants and employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work. A woman is therefore protected against such practices as being fired or refused a job or promotion because she is pregnant. She cannot be forced to go on leave as long as she can still work, and if other employees who take disability leave are entitled to get their jobs back, so are women who have been unable to work because of pregnancy. An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job'

http://www.nchealthystart.org/aboutus/incite/incite_dec_08.html


Ok lets take Sweden, and as we can see plenty of provision for the mother unlike Kansas

'Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[5] '

http://www.thelocal.se/20100519/26730

'A total of 25 percent of known pregnancies ended in an abortion last year.'

That's a huge high number, a quarter of all pregnancies. So abortion does not appear to be related to maternity leave, paid or unpaid, job protection etc.

I would guess that the reasons for abortion would vary from country to country and person to person. Nothing particularly startling with that.

Anyway, if there are loads of infertile couples in Ireland that would love to adopt why are there so many children in foster care awaiting adoption?

MrP

Delirium

mbiking123 wrote: »

'The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 (an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The basic principle behind PDA is that pregnant women must be treated the same as other applicants and employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work. A woman is therefore protected against such practices as being fired or refused a job or promotion because she is pregnant. She cannot be forced to go on leave as long as she can still work, and if other employees who take disability leave are entitled to get their jobs back, so are women who have been unable to work because of pregnancy. An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job'

http://www.nchealthystart.org/aboutus/incite/incite_dec_08.html


Ok lets take Sweden, and as we can see plenty of provision for the mother unlike Kansas

'Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[5] '

http://www.thelocal.se/20100519/26730

'A total of 25 percent of known pregnancies ended in an abortion last year.'

That's a huge high number, a quarter of all pregnancies. So abortion does not appear to be related to maternity leave, paid or unpaid, job protection etc.

yesterday you posted claiming women who had abortions cited their job as a reason for wanting an abortion. Are you now rolling back on that claim?

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

'The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 (an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The basic principle behind PDA is that pregnant women must be treated the same as other applicants and employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work. A woman is therefore protected against such practices as being fired or refused a job or promotion because she is pregnant. She cannot be forced to go on leave as long as she can still work, and if other employees who take disability leave are entitled to get their jobs back, so are women who have been unable to work because of pregnancy. An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job'

http://www.nchealthystart.org/aboutus/incite/incite_dec_08.html


Ok lets take Sweden, and as we can see plenty of provision for the mother unlike Kansas

'Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[5] '

http://www.thelocal.se/20100519/26730

'A total of 25 percent of known pregnancies ended in an abortion last year.'

That's a huge high number, a quarter of all pregnancies. So abortion does not appear to be related to maternity leave, paid or unpaid, job protection etc.

Abortion is related to whether or not a woman wants to be pregnant. There are many, many , many different reasons why a woman may not want to be pregnant. It is her body - her choice.

It is as simple as that.

Any chance you could explain to me how what you called an inconvenience can be classified as a temporary disability by the State of Kansas?